Management in practice: Overview of classic studies on managerial work

Tengblad, Stefan; Vie, Ola Edvin

doi:10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199639724.003.0002

Cited by 16 publications

(40 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…The first step thus had to be supplemented if we were to progress toward our aim of a more nuanced understanding of the field. The second stage of this review was therefore an exploratory search, aimed at filling in notable gaps, and moving beyond the ‘usual suspects’ of key texts (see Tengblad and Vie , for instance). We conducted a further ‘snowball’ search, commencing from reference lists of other review‐oriented articles and books (e.g.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…First, given limited space, we restricted the in-depth review to 1951-2015, commencing with Carlson's (1951) seminal study. In this, we partly followed other reviews, most notably Tengblad and Vie's (2012). As a result, several foundational works, such as Barnard's (1938) and Simon's (1945), are briefly acknowledged or entirely excluded (for more in-depth discussion, see for instance O'Connor 2011).…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…With such considerations in mind, this paper presents a chronological account of the field, specifically of the period from 1951 to 2015. Given limitations of space, it focuses on what Tengblad and Vie () call the ‘management and work behaviour’ literature, but considers further notable perspectives, chiefly labour process. It also introduces a theoretical lens – practice‐based studies (Feldman and Orlikowski ; Miettinen et al .…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…While some recent reviews were produced, most are either focused on niche topics such as distinctiveness of managerial work as a field (Noordegraaf and Stewart 2000), managing in small firms (Floren 2006) or managing internationally (Andersson and Floren 2008), or limited to examining a smaller number of key contributions. For instance, Tengblad and Vie (2012) restrict their focus to 21 notable studies, thus omitting other relevant perspectives, such as labour process (see Cunliffe 2009). As a result, the field of managerial work as it presently stands lacks an up-to-date wide-ranging account of scholarly foundations upon which engagements can be based and further developed (Boote and Beile 2005).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…With such considerations in mind, this paper presents a chronological account of the field, specifically of the period from 1951 to 2015. Given limitations of space, it focuses on what Tengblad and Vie (2012) call the 'management and work behaviour' literature, but considers further notable perspectives, chiefly labour process. It also introduces a theoretical lens -practice-based studies (Feldman and Orlikowski 2011;Miettinen et al 2009;Nicolini 2012; see Lounsbury and Beckman 2015) -as a promising means of addressing some of the shortcomings of existing approaches, aimed at facilitating the making of novel connections.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 4 more Smart Citations

In Search of ‘Managerial Work’: Past, Present and Future of an Analytical Category

Korica

Nicolini

Johnson

2015

Int J Management Reviews

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Based on a comprehensive review of literature, the paper examines how ‘managerial work’ as a fluid analytical category has been approached methodologically, theoretically and empirically for more than 60 years. In particular, it highlights the existence of competing scholarly understandings regarding its nature, performance, meaning and politics. The authors suggest that subsequent empirical investigations have too often worked, methodologically and theoretically, to slot in, and thus effectively reduce, the term to a particular pre‐existing box, rather than exploring open‐endedly the what and how, but also the why of ‘managerial work’ as a distinct mode of situated ordering. Having represented the concept's past and present by identifying four distinct research approaches reflected in representative publications, the authors suggest that more attention should be devoted to a mode of analytical departure that promises to address directly the suggested shortcomings in the literature. Specifically, it is argued that much could be gained if contemporary notions of practice were brought into the study of managerial work. To this end, the authors outline the contours of a practice‐based approach as a sensitizing framework for understanding managerial work by highlighting the situated, relational, sociomaterial, meaning‐making and consequence‐oriented analytical foci the approach suggests, and suggesting a number of conjoint research questions, as well as acknowledging subsequent limitations.

show abstract

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…With such considerations in mind, this paper presents a chronological account of the field, specifically of the period from 1951 to 2015. Given limitations of space, it focuses on what Tengblad and Vie (2012) call the 'management and work behaviour' literature, but considers further notable perspectives, chiefly labour process. It also introduces a theoretical lens -practice-based studies (Feldman and Orlikowski 2011;Miettinen et al 2009;Nicolini 2012; see Lounsbury and Beckman 2015) -as a promising means of addressing some of the shortcomings of existing approaches, aimed at facilitating the making of novel connections.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations